- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do you think that TD is such a magnet for those with alternative beliefs?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 5:42 pm to Gaggle
Posted on 7/19/22 at 5:42 pm to Gaggle
quote:
Nothing. The same applies to cancer cells.
Yes, except they generally have their own markers too, with their own cellular injury patterns. Not every tissue is susceptible to every disease at any time. Small cell lung carcinoma will look different from large cell carcinoma which will look different from lung squamous cell carcinoma with will look different from large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and so on. You'll patterns of disease that you won't see in TB or any other infection or disease. Not every part of the cell will stain with every available stain.
quote:
And if you see cancer expanding in the lungs and body of a smoker, you assume the smoking caused it
Firstly, you can't assume anything. You have to investigate and see what the evidence tells you. Lung carcinomas are discrete. They too have characteristic patterns of injury and location, limited to specific tissue types within larger tissues. Peripheral tumors have different associations at the genetic level than central tumors with cavitary lesions in the hilar bronchus than you would with a central tumor associated with the L-myc oncogene. You simply don't look at a radiograph and assume a carcinogen. You have to be specific and you have to justify every step. That you rarely have patterns of cellular injury overlap is a testament to the wide variety of tissues and wide variety of cellular injuries is a testament to our deep understanding of pathology as a whole. It's why every hospital is always reliant on its pathologist, who truly are the 'doctor's doctor' along with radiologists.
quote:
the body has to reproduce many more cells in response and this greatly increases the chances of a cancerous uncontrolled repeating malfunction.
Well at least you are understanding the basics of cellular injury. This is one of the responses to repeated cellular injury, with the classic example being Barrett's Esophagus, which is a premalignant condition associated with GERD.
quote:
And there is no proof of bacterial infection from a sneeze.
Except that you can see the differences. I had a very old patient who had stage 3 Lung squamous cell carcinoma, which has a strong association with smoking, where there was a central cavitary lesion. Also on CT and CXR, we saw active postprimary TB. How did we differentiate between the two? Well on biopsy of the cavitary lesion that was located in or near the hilar bronchus, the pathology showed immunohistochemical markers such as p40, p63, CK5, among others, and was further subdivided into one of four types, in this case Keratinizing. On histopathology slides, you could see several large polygonal and atypical squamous cells with polymorphic nuclei and mitotic figures. I believe the path report called that lesion moderately differentiated SCC with keratinization. The biopsy of the other lesions did not show that pattern of injury and instead showed cellular injury that was stereotypical of postprimary TB. The patient had a previous history of TB, as he was born abroad and was old, like I said and was also a smoker. That setting allowed for easy differentiation between cancer types and infection types, because again, cellular injury patterns are extremely specific so that there is very little overlap between a carcinoma and an infection. We know that TB doesn't survive anywhere but in very small nuclei that thrive in certain environmental conditions but not others. The injury pattern doesn't fit with cancer, autoimmune, environmental (which again has characteristic patterns) and any other disease. If at this point, we can't assume that the TB nuclei that can only spread in one way did not infect this specific patient, when we have ruled every other cause possible transmission method and cause out, I don't know what to tell you that could convince you.
quote:
What exactly is the clinical evidence? Since you can't straight up show a sick person getting another person sick, please explain the clinical evidence this is the case.
Well there is inferential data based on the biograms of hospitals. There is also the fact that if we are speaking strictly of airborne illnesses, which are extremely limited, then the inferential data from outbreaks is meaningful. In addition, the drugs that are used for TB are mostly specific for TB. They don't have much off-label use and are generally extremely old medications that are very cheap. Pharma companies would absolutely love an autoimmune cause, as there is far more money in immunotherapies, which are newer and more expensive, than there is in developing new therapies for TB. This fact is also reflected in the relative compensation of ID doctors versus Heme/Onc doctors.
If you suspect TB, and the drugs that specific for TB and used in cases like of mycobacterium infections, and you have characteristic findings including a ghon Complex, caseous granuloma's, an acid-fast bacilli smear using Ziehl Neelsen or auramine rhodamine stain or NAAT or an actual culture (which takes 2 to 6 weeks to develop and is highly dependent on sputum quality), I don't know what else it could be. Again, there is a broader context of symptoms that you can't discard. Different diseases present differently because they have different cellular patterns of injury. We know what types of patterns exist, we know how to stain them, we know how to differentiate them, etc. If I thought a lesion was cancerous absent symptoms, that wouldn't pass any level of scrutiny. Likewise if I saw a lesion that made me suspect TB, but I decided to ignore it given a patient's symptoms. These things don't happen in a vacuum. There are real results and real lives at stake, which is why with medicine we have a systemic approach we use over and over, with significant results over a population. No longer do you see anyone who has to retire to the sea on account of 'consumption.' Like I've said, the floors don't lie.
1
Posted on 7/19/22 at 5:49 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Have you ever consider an alternate pattern? Since there is no proof of airborn transmission? Who said it had to be one of those?
The injury pattern doesn't fit with cancer, autoimmune, environmental (which again has characteristic patterns) and any other disease. If at this point, we can't assume that the TB nuclei that can only spread in one way did not infect this specific patient, when we have ruled every other cause possible transmission method and cause out, I don't know what to tell you that could convince you.
quote:People are still sneezing on each other and not going to the doctor. So, that should happen a lot. You said sneezing causes it. You didn't stop sneezing. You look at it, sometimes, after they get sick. What are you taking credit for?
No longer do you see anyone who has to retire to the sea on account of 'consumption.'
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 6:09 pm to Gaggle
quote:
Have you ever consider an alternate pattern? Since there is no proof of airborn transmission? Who said it had to be one of those?
This is my last post before my shift.
The pattern is associated with biopsies. There are no alternative patterns to consider. You can look at the slides yourself. If you were in healthcare, you even follow the sample from biopsy to staining and look for yourself. Pathology is a great place for repeating testable observations.
quote:
People are still sneezing on each other and not going to the doctor. So, that should happen a lot. You said sneezing causes it. You didn't stop sneezing. You look at it, sometimes, after they get sick. What are you taking credit for?
Not every pathogen is ever-present in every sputum sample. Not every transmission routes between pathogens is the same. Not every population is the same nor are all measures against diseases equal. Proper ventilation and the morphology of TB itself has limited its scope. Given that, around 2 billion people are infected with the disease which exists in various activation states. Every pathogen has its own specific method of prevention. Clean potable water has saved countless millions, as has vaccination and medications. The effect has been so profound that people can't even make the connections anymore between public health and things like water filtration. And given the patient census we have each day, the world inside the hospital is just materially different. Like I've said before, the floors cannot tell a lie. The effects are visceral, and the connection between cause and effect is pronounced.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 6:15 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Yes
Clean potable water has saved countless millions,
quote:No. TB, Polio all of these drastically fell to near eradication before the vaccine was introduced, then spiked after the vaccine, then began to fall again to their prior spot.
as has vaccination and medications.
I want you to actually research that. I have. How do you think I knew so assuredly you wouldn't find a human-to-human aerosol transmission study?
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:14 pm to Bronc
Yes Dunning-Kruger. Congrats on the hearing about the Reddit meme from 10 years ago. You're so smart.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:27 pm to Gaggle
That’s the thing, the people that should most know when they are out of their depth, seem to have an inexplicable ability to not see it.
Next you can tell us about how the world is flat, creationism is sound science, and if you just dump vodka into charred barrels it makes whiskey….
Next you can tell us about how the world is flat, creationism is sound science, and if you just dump vodka into charred barrels it makes whiskey….
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:34 pm to Bronc
quote:I asked if it would, and some people said yes. I'm not afraid of asking a stupid question. I know that I'm not stupid. You are afraid you are stupid, and are scared of being called stupid, so you don't ask questions and trust what you are told. Or you simply don't ask questions and don't know, but still call other people stupid for asking questions. And this is how an absolute lunacy like round earth becomes believed in religiously.
you just dump vodka into charred barrels it makes whiskey….
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:52 pm to Gaggle
quote:
and some people said yes.
Those are called people that were wrong, objectively. One involves a specific malting process before fermentation and distillation, the other doesn’t. But you latching onto the people that reinforced what you want to believe is yet another learning opportunity(which you will again promptly ignore). As that process is what we would classify as motivated reasoning
LINK
Which is the process of applying unequal standards and cherry picking the evidence that supports what you want to be true.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:55 pm to Bronc
quote:What makes you think I've latched onto them?
But you latching onto the people that reinforced what you want to believe is yet another learning opportunity(which you will again promptly ignore)
quote:Great. I haven't claimed you could turn vodka into whiskey. I asked people questions about it to better understand it, apparently in a way you can't fathom.
Which is the process of applying unequal standards and cherry picking the evidence that supports what you want to be true.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:03 pm to Gaggle
quote:
What makes you think I've latched onto them?
You evoked only the people standing on the end of the argument that reinforces your initial hypothesis, still evoking them as if it’s still a matter of debate, when it’s simply right or wrong. Whiskey is created through a malting process, vodka is not. Taking the end product of creating vodka and placing it in charred barrels doesn’t magically reverse and imbue that process into the alcohol.
You over apply skepticism based on the preferred outcome you want. If you applied the same skepticism to the flat Earth theory you do to the scientific and observed consensus around the spherical reality of the planet, you’d come to the conclusion most of the educated world has which is the flat earth theory has no evidence that independently supports it or can hold up to comparatively infinitesimally smaller amounts of scrutiny before falling completely apart. The fact you still default to the latter despite vastly inferior independent supporting evidence speaks clearly to distortions in your thinking brought on by bias and motivated reasoning.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:08 pm to Bronc
The dumbest person in that thread was the one who said vodka = from potatoes, whiskey = from corn, etc. And you know what, THAT'S what the average dumbass thinks. That's what the average egghead at NASA thinks. And I was cognizant of that (the average person, not NASA) and wanted to evoke that response. The only time I spoke authoritatively was correcting them on what I actually knew. And simultaneously learn more myself. You know more about whiskey distillation than I do. I freely admit it, and never attested otherwise.
quote:the problem is flat earth is true. Whether the world agrees or not. It is.
You over apply skepticism based on the preferred outcome you want. If you applied the same skepticism to the flat Earth theory you do to the scientific and observed consensus around the spherical reality of the planet, you’d come to the conclusion most of the educated world has which is the flat earth theory has no evidence that independently supports it or can hold up to comparatively infinitesimally smaller amounts of scrutiny before falling completely apart. The fact you still default to the alter speaks clearly to distortions in your thinking brought on by bias and motivated reasoning.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:22 pm to Gaggle
Randomly bringing in how dumb NASA scientists are, interesting.
So this is all a manifestation and overcompensation from feelings of inadequacy? I’m guessing you might lie but in reality you never finished college? Maybe never went? Or barely got through with some meaningless general studies degree?
The successful doctors and NASA scientists you failed to become say one thing and you swim through the land of conspiracies and fringe ideas to try and find forbidden knowledge to make you feel like you in fact know more than clearly superiorly educated and knowledgeable people on said subjects do.
Here’s the thing, I don’t think I’m an expert, in fact, I didn’t know the true difference before stumbling on your thread, but you know what? People that have well developed critical thinking processes and know how to objectively research a topic and not let themselves be persuaded by cognitive bias can often find reliable information such as multiple science outlets, distillation how-to’s, experts in the field and do ad hoc research about what process creates vodka and what process creates whiskey and where the two diverge. And if they happen to upset my initial assumption, I don’t run the other way and swallow up conspiracies to avoid just admitting I’m wrong. Which I’m guessing if we were to push you on how you decided the flat earth theory has credibility, would require a massive amount of conspiracy, innuendo, and lacking in independent supporting evidence of the central premise
So this is all a manifestation and overcompensation from feelings of inadequacy? I’m guessing you might lie but in reality you never finished college? Maybe never went? Or barely got through with some meaningless general studies degree?
The successful doctors and NASA scientists you failed to become say one thing and you swim through the land of conspiracies and fringe ideas to try and find forbidden knowledge to make you feel like you in fact know more than clearly superiorly educated and knowledgeable people on said subjects do.
quote:
You know more about whiskey distillation than I do. I freely admit it, and never attested otherwise.
Here’s the thing, I don’t think I’m an expert, in fact, I didn’t know the true difference before stumbling on your thread, but you know what? People that have well developed critical thinking processes and know how to objectively research a topic and not let themselves be persuaded by cognitive bias can often find reliable information such as multiple science outlets, distillation how-to’s, experts in the field and do ad hoc research about what process creates vodka and what process creates whiskey and where the two diverge. And if they happen to upset my initial assumption, I don’t run the other way and swallow up conspiracies to avoid just admitting I’m wrong. Which I’m guessing if we were to push you on how you decided the flat earth theory has credibility, would require a massive amount of conspiracy, innuendo, and lacking in independent supporting evidence of the central premise
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:26 pm to Bronc
quote:It's not random. You just can't understand why I brought it up.
Randomly bringing in how dumb NASA scientists are, interesting.
quote:I'm embarrassed for you Mr Dimestore Psychologist
So this is all a manifestation and overcompensation from feelings of inadequacy? I’m guessing you might lie but in reality you never finished college? Maybe never went? Or barely got through with some meaningless general studies degree?
quote:Baseless, ridiculous pop-psychology assumptions about me marvelously intertwined with appeal to authority.
People that have well developed critical thinking processes and know how to objectively research a topic and not let themselves be persuaded by cognitive bias can often find reliable information such as multiple science outlets, distillation how-to’s, experts in the field and do ad hoc research about what process creates vodka and what process creates whiskey and where the two diverge. And if they happen to upset my initial assumption, I don’t run the other way and swallow up conspiracies to avoid just admitting I’m wrong. Which I’m guessing if we were to push you on how you decided the flat earth theory has credibility, would require a massive amount of conspiracy, innuendo, and lacking in independent supporting evidence of the central premise
You think I WANTED to believe flat earth?
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:39 pm to Gaggle
lol and we struck the nervestick!
Yes
Cause either you are as brain dead in your ability to do research as figuring out what differentiates vodka from whiskey without asking for help, or, you did the thing I mentioned before about motivated reasoning.
Cause simply put, we’ve literally seen it(cue endless conspiracies to get him to the conclusion his brain wants to be true)
quote:
You think I WANTED to believe flat earth?
Yes
Cause either you are as brain dead in your ability to do research as figuring out what differentiates vodka from whiskey without asking for help, or, you did the thing I mentioned before about motivated reasoning.
Cause simply put, we’ve literally seen it(cue endless conspiracies to get him to the conclusion his brain wants to be true)
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:51 pm to Bronc
I really don't care about whiskey distillation. I haven't spent time studying it and you won't find me talking about it authoritatively. You've invented an entire fantasy of garbage psych 101 based on a shitpost thread to justify how I could possibly believe in flat earth. I think I have struck a nerve. Look at you coming up with these dumb theories about me. Just tying yourself in knots. Because of a dumb flat earther.
You could be wrong. I could not be a total loser who takes solace in conspiracies to feel better. I could be more successful than you. You don't have any proof or any basis whatsoever. You've come up with it, and latched onto it to feel better. Isn't it ironic?
You could be wrong. I could not be a total loser who takes solace in conspiracies to feel better. I could be more successful than you. You don't have any proof or any basis whatsoever. You've come up with it, and latched onto it to feel better. Isn't it ironic?
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 9:53 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News